All Rounders Poll - Discussion

[ankitj]

Goddard overrated in the poll. @Prince EWS at fault.

 

[sayon basak]

Goddard overrated in the poll. @Prince EWS at fault.

56% of the people voted Goddard. PEWS vote would make no change ig.

 

[Prince EWS]

56% of the people voted Goddard. PEWS vote would make no change ig.

He's blaming me for lobbying.

 

[sayon basak]

He's blaming me for lobbying.

You influenced more than half of the people?

Some influence you have!

 

[Prince EWS]

You influenced more than half of the people?

Some influence you have!

If I can get John Ruddick elected I can do anything.

 

[Coronis]

If I can get John Ruddick elected I can do anything.

I think as with Goddard the last name had a lot to do with it.

 

[sayon basak]

Noble underrated in the poll.

 

[Coronis]

Why? Mushtaq and Mankad both bowled 70 innings in tests. Mankad took 162 wkts while Mushtaq took only 79 wkts. Mankad also took 8 5fer and 2 10fer, while Mushtaq only took 3 5fer

I didn’t realise that was the only measure of an allrounder tbh.

Mushtaq was a far better batsman, and has less wickets because he bowled less. In fact he has a better average and far better SR than Mankad.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I didn’t realise that was the only measure of an allrounder tbh.

Mushtaq was a far better batsman, and has less wickets because he bowled less. In fact he has a better average and far better SR than Mankad.

I rate Mushtaq higher than Mankad as a Test allrounder, but think that's a kinda important criteria.....

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I dont see how bowling far less can be handwaved away, that just means he was less of an all rounder in terms of the role he performed.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Mark was a better bowler at his bowling peak but he gave up bowling properly really early because of back injuries. I think the vote was probably for Steve but LL may have been assuming the only reason someone would vote for either would be to get peak Mark.

Steve was probably the 2nd best all-rounder in the world in the early 1990s behind Brian McMillan.

 

[Coronis]

Steve was probably the 2nd best all-rounder in the world in the early 1990s behind Brian McMillan.

Who?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Who?

Stephen Roger Waugh AO (born 2 June 1965)
- quite a famous cricketer


Do you mean who for McMillan?
Quality Saffa all-rounder. Aggressive 3rd/4th seamer. Hard hitting 6/7. Great slip fielder.
Will probably start getting votes in about 2 more rounds.

 

[Betterpolo]

Stephen Roger Waugh AO (born 2 June 1965)
- quite a famous cricketer


Do you mean who for McMillan?
Quality Saffa all-rounder. Aggressive 3rd/4th seamer. Hard hitting 6/7. Great slip fielder.
Will probably start getting votes in about 2 more rounds.

Great head of hair too, although that seemed to do its own thing just as much as McMillan himself

 

[Line and Length]

As anticipated, finding genuine Test all rounders beyond a certain stage becomes difficult.
Looking at some of the more recent nominations (eg Greg Chappell) it becomes ridiculous that someone like Walter Hammond has been overlooked by so many (including me). We've reached the stage where it would be somewhat farcical if Hammond were to be ranked so low (outside the top 20) so it is perhaps better if he were to miss out completely.

I have applied certain criteria when voting (apart from 2 occasions). I look for a minimum of 10 Tests (sorry Procter), a batting average > 25 (apologies Davidson) and a WPM figure > 2 (bad luck Mushtaq). Having mentioned Mushtaq, I admit he has had my votes previously as I had not checked his WPM (1.39). The other getting a nod from me was Kallis.

Of the 12 players who cropped up in the last round without earning a spot, only 3 (Rhodes, Flintoff and Abdul Razaaq) qualify when applying my criteria. I don't intend changing my selection mode but I must point out that everyone involved in this poll has their own methodology and it isn't my intention to persuade them to change.

 

[Qlder]

I have applied certain criteria when voting (apart from 2 occasions). I look for a minimum of 10 Tests (sorry Procter), a batting average > 25 (apologies Davidson) and a WPM figure > 2 (bad luck Mushtaq). Having mentioned Mushtaq, I admit he has had my votes previously as I had not checked his WPM (1.39). The other getting a nod from me was Kallis.

Of the 12 players who cropped up in the last round without earning a spot, only 3 (Rhodes, Flintoff and Abdul Razaaq) qualify when applying my criteria.

There are still many more players left with your criteria of batting > 25 and >2 wpm though, so people will get to them

Rhodes - 30.19 and 2.2 wpm
Tate - 25.48 and 4.0 wpm
Bailey - 29.74 and 2.2 wpm
Vettori - 30.00 and 3.2 wpm
Flintoff - 31.77 and 2.9 wpm
Razzaq - 28.61 and 2.2 wpm
Boje - 25.23 and 2.3 wpm
Pathan - 31.57 and 3.4 wpm
Woakes - 26.26 and 3.2 wpm
Ali - 28.12 and 3.0 wpm
Holder- 29.83 and 2.3 wpm

Also if you round up Davidson averages 25
Davidson - 24.59 and 4.2 wpm

 

[Prince EWS]

As anticipated, finding genuine Test all rounders beyond a certain stage becomes difficult.
Looking at some of the more recent nominations (eg Greg Chappell) it becomes ridiculous that someone like Walter Hammond has been overlooked by so many (including me). We've reached the stage where it would be somewhat farcical if Hammond were to be ranked so low (outside the top 20) so it is perhaps better if he were to miss out completely.

I have applied certain criteria when voting (apart from 2 occasions). I look for a minimum of 10 Tests (sorry Procter), a batting average > 25 (apologies Davidson) and a WPM figure > 2 (bad luck Mushtaq). Having mentioned Mushtaq, I admit he has had my votes previously as I had not checked his WPM (1.39). The other getting a nod from me was Kallis.

Of the 12 players who cropped up in the last round without earning a spot, only 3 (Rhodes, Flintoff and Abdul Razaaq) qualify when applying my criteria. I don't intend changing my selection mode but I must point out that everyone involved in this poll has their own methodology and it isn't my intention to persuade them to change.

I agree that Hammond should've been much higher and I've been voting for him for ages, but the Chappell vote isn't a good example because subs is openly just trolling.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There are still many more players left with your criteria of batting > 25 and >2 wpm though, so people will get to them

Rhodes - 30.19 and 2.2 wpm
Tate - 25.48 and 4.0 wpm
Bailey - 29.74 and 2.2 wpm
Vettori - 30.00 and 3.2 wpm
Flintoff - 31.77 and 2.9 wpm
Razzaq - 28.61 and 2.2 wpm
Boje - 25.23 and 2.3 wpm
Pathan - 31.57 and 3.4 wpm
Woakes - 26.26 and 3.2 wpm
Ali - 28.12 and 3.0 wpm
Holder- 29.83 and 2.3 wpm

Also if you round up Davidson averages 25
Davidson - 24.59 and 4.2 wpm

The 2 wickets per test criteria eliminates quality allrounders like McMillan 75 in 38 tests (only needed 1 more wicket!), Armstrong, Reid, Barlow, Oram etc. who were better than many of those listed above.

 

[Qlder]

The 2 wickets per test criteria eliminates quality allrounders like McMillan 75 in 38 tests (only needed 1 more wicket!), Armstrong, Reid, Barlow, Oram etc. who were better than many of those listed above.

Yeah I generally go with Min 1.75 wpm just to fit Kallis in. Btw McMillan is 1.97 which rounds up to 2.0 wpm

My list above was 1000 runs / 100 wkts or McMillan would have shown up as 39.36 batting and 2.0 wpm so good call on him (he'll be in my next vote)

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah I generally go with Min 1.75 wpm just to fit Kallis in. Btw McMillan is 1.97 which rounds up to 2.0 wpm

My list above was 1000 runs / 100 wkts or McMillan would have shown up as 39.36 batting and 2.0 wpm so good call on him

Maybe lower your parameters. Jack Gregory, for example, only took 85 wickets.